Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday August 11, 2014 @09:40AM
from the in-the-cards dept.

Taco Cowboy writes with this story about new research that finds a strong genetic component to a child's ability in math and reading. "You may think you're better at reading than you are at math (or vice versa), but new research suggests you're probably equally good (or bad) at both. The reason: The genes that determine a person's ability to tackle one subject influence their aptitude at the other, accounting for about half of a person's overall ability. The study, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, used nearly 1,500 pairs of 12-year-old twins to tease apart the effects of genetic inheritance and environmental variables on math and reading ability. The researchers administered a set of math and verbal tests to the children and then compared the performance of different sets of twins. They found that the twins' scores — no matter if they were high or low — were twice as similar among pairs of identical twins as among pairs of fraternal twins. The results indicated that approximately half of the children's math and reading ability stemmed from their genetic makeup.

A complementary analysis of unrelated kids corroborated this conclusion — strangers with equivalent academic abilities shared genetic similarities. What's more, the genes responsible for math and reading ability appear to be numerous and interconnected, not specifically targeted toward one set of skills. These so-called 'generalist genes' act in concert to determine a child's aptitude across multiple disciplines. The finding that one's propensities for math and reading go hand in hand may come as a surprise to many, but it shouldn't. People often feel that they possess skills in only one area simply because they perform slightly worse in the other."

Just proves that all men an NOT created equal, no matter what the PC crowd would have you believe.

What Mr. Lincoln left out was the rest of the statement, "in the eyes of the law".That omission has wasted millions of dollars for higher education for those that can't learn. Not to mention the money wasted on "equal opportunity" and "head start" programs.

Proof of the above. Why do you think macs draw the art crowd? Hint: People who aren't genetically predisposed to math and reading comprehension don't compare enough to see the obvious price and technical specification deficiencies. That and the Windows interface is more verbose.:D

What he actually left out was the next phrase in the sentence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", which is not quite the same as saying "in the eyes of the law" as these are also known as "natural rights" while "in the eyes of the law" would suggest the presence of a government.

You are confusing two different things: 1) the assumption that all people have equal intellectual ability (which practically nobody believes), with: 2) the assertion that only those with high potential are deserving of the nourishment needed to reach one's own personal potential. I can see different levels of intellectual ability in my own children; do I pull the less-able one from math? No! If anything, she will benefit more from the extra time devoted to mastering times tables than my other kids would benefit from learning a little more geometry.

Secondly, you completely confused about equal opportunity. There is nothing in this study that says people of equal potential will reach equal levels of attainment if the potential of one is developed while the potential of the other is neglected or discouraged.

If anything, she will benefit more from the extra time devoted to mastering times tables than my other kids would benefit from learning a little more geometry.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that? It seems to me if your daughter spent that extra time working on something she enjoys and is good at, and the other kid spends extra time working on math, they'd both benefit more than if they spent extra time working on what they are not interested in. Of course some minimum level of achievement is necessary in all subjects, but it seems like you're talking about how time should be budgeted when going beyond the minimum.

Perhaps she's good at something else but doesn't like doing it, or perhaps it won't lead to a lucrative career? If she's slower at learning math, it's obvious she will need to spend more time at it to get the same proficiency as her sibling.

Being human is about overcoming the disadvantages nature has imposed on you, not embracing them.

I would say that 'being human' is about adapting to your situation. That can be overcoming your disadvantages by sheer force, but it can also be finding a different path to where your disadvantages don't matter, or are even an advantage. There is no reason that we should all be striving towards having the same skillset, though.

Well on one side, we have the PC crowd with their "everyone is really the same, so anyone can succeed" and it's just the Big Bad Meanies holding some people back because of their race/religion/whatever and take away their will to succeed.

On the other, we have the Meritocracy crowd, with their "anyone can succeed, they just need to work at it" and the Big Bad Meanies want to punish the people who succeeded and take away their will to succeed.

That omission has wasted millions of dollars for higher education for those that can't learn. Not to mention the money wasted on "equal opportunity" and "head start" programs.

What a mind-boggling conclusion to draw from the article. If a human-being's intelligence is only 50% influenced by their environment, you think we should deny them the environment to develop that 50%? If that's you're reasoning, I suspect you would be one of the people being denied these social benefits.

Proves that? One anonymous poster's declaration that the researchers are hiding something *proves* your racist nonsense? The researchers did a pretty standard comparison of data on twins to data on the general population, there's a good chance they didn't even have racial information.

"That omission has wasted millions of dollars for higher education for those that can't learn."
- Bzzt, wrong. There's nothing in this research that claims anybody "can't learn."

"Not to mention the money wasted on 'equal opportunity' and 'head start' programs." - Bzzt, wrong again, and 0 for 2. There's nothing in this research that shows equal opportunity or head start programs don't help, much less that they are a "waste."

Your post, and the one we are responding to, are good examples of why people have become "PC" and afraid of certain facts - because history is so full of people with political ends who (unconsciously) twist the facts to support their subjective beliefs, sometimes with disastrous results.

>There's nothing in this research that shows equal opportunity or head start programs don't help, much less that they are a "waste."

Well, not in *this* research. The government's own research does shows that head start is a massive waste of money:

"In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at

The word "race does not appear anywhere in the study. The word "ethnicity" appears once in the TEDS study - they only studied people who identified as white with English as their primary language.

So, I ask you, exactly which genes or alleles or associated with academic abilities (name them) are unequally distributed in different races?What study demonstrates this?This is a real question. I don't know the answer. Because you made the statement, I'm supposing that you know the answer.

The human genome project aims to map distributions of known gene alleles across the entire genomic space of the human species; and there are many studies that track individual and sets of alleles across geographic and ethnic group boundries.

This study focuses on a single regional and ethnic group, but narrows action of a set of alleles.

Comparing both data sets to each other, will give you the difference in distribution of those alleles across the regional and ethn

there is a sizable minority of people in modern society who are full-on 'social darwinists' in that they would go hook, line, and sinker for a program that told them it would bring us Brave New World level society

they'd get 1984 of course, but they'd believe a company/monarch/government that would **promise** a utopia

here's part of the issue...***they don't acknowledge their beliefs***

they don't self-identify as a 'social darwinist' or 'eugenics proponent' ever

Sure, you can stunt someone, butof course our abilities - our potentials - are genetic. The surprise would be if environment has any effect beyond the ability to stunt an otherwise present potential. Why do PC nuts always hyperventilate, when aptitudes turn out to be inborn.

The link between reading and math runs, as nearly as I can tell from this and other studies, over general intelligence. If you have an IQ of 130, likely you are pretty good at both. If you have an IQ of 80, not so much.

Environment and upbringing play some role as well.Small children (toddlers+) are equally interested in pretty much everything because everything is new to them. As their character becomes better defined, they will lean towards something, not necessarily because of an innate preference but because of external factors, e.g. "more toys of that type" or "parents engaging in activities of this type more".I am too lazy to look this up but my guess is that children whose parents are artists will more likely become

No, it's not just a matter of work ethic. In fact, this often runs contrary to work ethic, as people will learn new skills to avoid or reduce the amount of work they have to do. A similar thing happens at the physical level when you learn. Something incredibly complex such as bipedal locomotion gets to the point where it's handled without any active thought because it's less work to do so.

PS. If genetics played a part, someone good at math is not going to be good at languages There is a reason why they a

1) What is meant with "skill at reading"? This does not become clear from the summary. If they mean just the ability to convert symbols into sounds I'd assume the plateau for that is pretty low and most people reach it pretty early on in their lives. If they mean interpretative ability, how do they quantify that, and how do they distinguish between correct and incorrect interpretations beyond a certain point? In the sentence "When the cat entered the room, he sat down on the mat." it is obviously incorrect to interpret "he" as referring to a dog, but when asked to interpret who or what "the shadow" refers to in Eliot's The Hollow Men it becomes a lot less clear which responses are correct and which ones incorrect. Compared to the high end of interpretative ability, mathematical ability is much easier to test and quantify, so how can they say that reading ability and mathematical ability are comparable? Maybe my reading ability is particularly low, but the more I think about it, the less I understand of what is meant by these researchers.

2) What does "twice as similar" mean? I obviously realize that this refers to some statistical characteristic of the data, but that doesn't make "twice as similar" as an expression any more comprehensible. I guess a fish is twice as similar to a horse as grass is (all three are alive, but only horses and fish have spines, and only horses and fish convert oxygen into carbon dioxide), but I doubt that's what they mean.

Also, what do they mean by "math ability". Testing 12 year olds, so not all that advanced, right? I'm sure there are adults that read excellently but wouldn't have a clue about something like Tensor Calculus (he says picking something he's only vaguely heard of and *knows* he'd be no good at given experience with UK 1st year University Physics Degree course in the early 90s).

1) What is meant with "skill at reading"? [snip] If they mean just the ability to convert symbols into sounds I'd assume the plateau for that is pretty low and most people reach it pretty early on in their lives.

Well, given that the study focuses on 12-year-olds, I'd say that many of them are probably still in the process of achieving their final reading skills.

If they mean interpretative ability, how do they quantify that, and how do they distinguish between correct and incorrect interpretations beyond a certain point?

Umm, the same way most standardized tests do in "reading comprehension" exercises? Your post has a couple ambiguous examples, which would be poor test questions. But there are plenty of ways to generate more complex reading tasks that involve understanding the structure of a complicated argument, etc. A lot of it also is in understanding the connotations

What I'm wondering is what implications this will have for standardized tests. Most of the tests assume that everyone is on the same playing field - but if this is true, and genetics play a role equal to 50% of a student's learning ability, this would essentially mean that some students will intrinsically perform better than their peers simply because they have the genes and other people don't.

I'm willing to bet that the second they come up with a test for these genes, there will be lawsuits by school districts who lose funding over standardized tests, claiming that they are at an unfair disadvantage because their students simply don't have the genetic makeup to score well on the tests.

Most people have a natural talent for certain categories of things, and suck at others. That's the problem with all IQ tests, or "performance" tests: they don't take into account that there are many forms of intelligence.

The existence of generalized intelligence is well-established and largely uncontroversial.
See, for example, G-factor [wikipedia.org].
It's also not really controversial that it's largely driven by genetics.

That's the problem with all IQ tests, or "performance" tests: they don't take into account that there are many forms of intelligence.

It's only a "problem" per se if you're attempting to use the tests for things for which they are not designed. The IQ tests don't test for creativity, which is the primary skill needed for problem-solving in the real world. They test for the other surrounding skills, which without creativity are good mostly for following orders. That's the only part with which "the establishment" is truly concerned. See also: the state of public education today in the USA.

I'm willing to bet that the second they come up with a test for these genes, there will be lawsuits by school districts who lose funding over standardized tests, claiming that they are at an unfair disadvantage because their students simply don't have the genetic makeup to score well on the tests.

I would bet on a different outcome; school districts will plead for more money:

What I'm wondering is what implications this will have for standardized tests. Most of the tests assume that everyone is on the same playing field

I don't think that's true at all, and it probably never has been.

Early SATs were deliberately modeled after early IQ tests, which were designed to test "innate" intelligence and abilities. Nobody in the early days of testing ever worried about a "level playing field" -- they just wanted to determine the students most qualified for college or whatever. (Of course, about a century ago when this testing started, the only people likely to have that innate ability developed well were mostly richer kids who w

The tests are designed to (or ideally should) measure how well you've learned material people in charge of education have decided is important for you to know to further your future career and contribution to society. Whether you learn the material through genetic predisposition or by using sheer willpower to study is irrelevant. All that matters is whether you know the material or not.

If you're arguing that the tests cover material not relevant to children's future success, then that's something you h

There is general pattern recognition (Hm, this artist it clearly talented, he has created something similar to, but not identical to Picasso's early work.) and specific pattern recognition (This is an example of the subspecies called a "Spotted Owl".) As such, anything that helps pattern recognition will help all intelligence. Things that help certain kinds of pattern recognition will only certain skills.

Specifically:

Singular neurons are simple things, their value and complexity grows only when you hav

In my many years of computer consulting, I have ended up teaching many people various computer/math skills. I have no doubt that some people simply come under the category of thick headed. I will explain something simple 8 different ways and they just don't get it. While other people might not have a knack for things computery they only need to be shown something once.

The same with math. For some reason I have ended up teaching people elements of math. Some people I have shown how to calculate percentages multiple times, while others I will show something far more complex such as how to calculate a mortgage payment and it sticks. Both groups will have had roughly similar math educations.

I wonder if this is where some people choke when learning to program. There are many concepts in programming that must be mastered. There is no wiggle room with each concept such as ifs, whiles, switches, etc. You either get it or you don't, and with so many to learn they must be gotten quickly in a typical intro to programming course. Again I have helped people with their programming homework and while some would instantly absorb what I was saying there were groups to whom I might as well have been just making up words.

Maybe I am a lousy teacher but lets say I am teaching someone to do the local sales tax (15%) and I tell them to do 1 x 1.15 to get the total on a calculator. I might even explain that the 1 represents the original price and the.15 is the tax and together they get the total. But I also just say, do 1.15 and it will just work. Write it on the calculator if needed. Easy Peasy.

Just do a google image search for "potholes of halifax nova scotia" and you can see what a 15% sales tax actually does. It produces a giant pothole for businesses trying to operate in the area so they either die or go away. You can guess what the other taxes in Nova Scotia are like which also are working together to kill the economy.

Also thanks for confirming that I was not way off base with the way that I have taught something so basic as sales tax. I don't know how many tellers have looked at me strang

It's just anecdotal evidence, but my kids Adopted from Africa... he's smart but in regards to entirely different things than I am. I'm your typical computer guy... terrible with people but good with math, bad at spelling and grammar. He's totally outgoing, a natural leader. I take him to the park and he's organizing group activities with all the kids within minutes. It's truly amazing. I couldn't do that now, as an adult! He's 6, and already reading at a level I wasn't at until middle school. So genetics are definitely a factor.

That being said, I'm intensely interested in the mechanics of just about everything. How do you build a fence? How does a lawn mower work? I've passed this curiosity on to my son. So nurture is a factor to.

I've learned more about life by adopting than just about any other thing I've ever done in my life. I highly recommend it, you'll get more out of the venture than you ever had to put in.

My oldest is 6 and naturally curious about how it works. You could go through all the mechanics and he would be captivated with the description but never touch it. My youngest is 4 and you've got to be careful merely doing things in his presence.

Apologies for the uninteresting followup, posted to remove an accidental down-moderation. I suppose it would be too much to hope that the next version of Slashdot will not let you mis-moderate simply by releasing the mouse when it's one pixel off from the intended target.

You may think you’re better at reading than you are at math (or vice versa), but new research suggests you’re probably equally good (or bad) at both. The reason: The genes that determine a person’s ability to tackle one subject influence their aptitude at the other, accounting for about half of a person’s overall ability.

...

The brilliant mathematician — that’s all they do for decades, they just think math and work on math. It’s not like it comes to them with a flash of inspiration. It’s really a long, long process of thinking about these things.

Right, obviously. So why are they assuming that I have similar ability in math as in reading?

While focusing on racial issues to the exclusion of other things is asinine and silly, it's also asinine and silly to claim that groups of disparate people will not have differing talents and abilities, in aggregate.

Of course, aggregates tell us very little about individuals, and can't (and shouldn't) be used to make policy, social or legal.

Or maybe there's real-world ugly truths that the utopianists and progressives refuse to accept.

Well, possibly, but experience teaches that flat-out racism is a more likely culprit. We've seen people of all races and ethnic background perform at a very high level at every possible field, including Jewish and Italian basketball players and African-American pure mathematicians. What Murray (and you) are always looking for is the ceiling and floor. That's racist.

Plus, we've learned that there is one additional defining characteristic of racists: They will go to great lengths to try to rationalize their bigotry. And that, was my point. You've confirmed that.

I know I'm probably going to burn for this comment, but you don't need a ceiling or a floor to define superior and inferior. If you were stress testing parts in a machine and 20 out of 100 of brand A broke while 80 out of 100 of brand B did the same I think most people would reasonably call brand A better than B, even though the best from brand B did better than the worst from brand A.

Racists don't look at the individual, they want all of them gone for the greater good. It's the only way you can "justify" g

My experience (no science here, only personal encounters) is there are 2 types of racists, and both are wrong but not in the same way.

Racist theorists think we can achieve a better optimum in a society by removing bad elements. The idea is, if you remove the low values, the mean goes up. They completely fail at understanding the benefits of stochastic exploration in something as complex as a society. If evolution is so performing good it is also because of the stochastic exploration it uses introducing muta

Well, you've already decided that "racists will go to great lengths to try to rationalize their bigotry". You probably decided that a long time ago, probably before even examining the facts involved. But you want to call me prejudiced?

I have tolerance for all but the intolerant. Why is that so hard for bigots to understand? It's not a paradox. It doesn't involve any twisted logic. It's really fucking simple.

He might not be. I do sometimes find it hard to tell what people mean by their posts.

I'll say it though. Someone's genetic make up puts an upper limit on how intelligent* they can be. As does their upbringing, specifically, and especially, things such as diet and stimulation during their formative years. Ask if we can quantify this limit in any sensible fashion, however, and the answer is no, not really. But it would seem that certain of the genetic indicators for this potential have finally been identified

You miss the point. It is obvious that based on genetic criteria, people are not physically equal. Some run faster, some spring higher while others are better at abstraction or emotions. That it is not uniformly distributed among ethnicities is completely irrelevant, and hopefully you'll understand why.

The way we have to consider equality among men is by definition, like an axiom. That way, we can build rules that are much more interesting than the ones where all men are not equal. In particular, it gives y

If that's a concern the results tests should "double blind"; that is designed so that the person administering them doesn't see the subject, and the person analysing them doesn't have access to data on the subject's racial background

also, "sharing genetic similarities" is so broad anything could be correlated...this research is all over the map and, if you agree with GP the best idea is to not even consider the researchers findings

(Anyway, if it is/i. true, it shows that meritocracy has no ethical basis.)

Which would be a freaking bombshell for our civilization.

If true, we could use the finding in one of two ways. To give up on all attempts at equality and create a caste-based society (see also: Gattaca), or to try to move past our primitive ambition for meritocracy and go straight for egalitarianism...and I think we know which one is much easier and more likely:-(

Imagine a factory, where you had certain specialist robots that were three times as fast at assembling engines, but average at everything else. For the sake of simplicity, imagine all other robots were at the same level for everything else and had no specialization.

Let's assume all the robots *want* to do easier jobs, because there is more idle time, and all robots are paid a fraction of the production of the factory.

A person's IQ score at age 6 is already a stronger correlation with their future income than any other factor (including their parents income). This is pretty well known.

How does this make a meritocracy unethical? I can tell you, with some degree of accuracy (in aggregate), which members of a class of 6 year olds will fall in society based on a cognitive and spatial reasoning test. But if any one of those "smart" kids simply smokes weed all day and doesn't

But since this is correlation-is-causation century, I thought I might as well go for it.

this is the reality...a bunch of idiots learned they can use science language to bolster any theory if you can get 51% to answer one side of zero on a likert scale...now we really are in the 'correlation-is-causation century'

This indicates that if there is a genetic component, it is largely irrelevant as the learning environment has the greater impact.

False. I'm unclear how you came to that conclusion based on the quote you highlighted. It does not say that learning environment has a *greater* impact. It says learning environment has *some* impact. Overall, but it is less than or equal to the importance of genetics.

This result is consistent with other studies on the topic. Unfortunately, this fact pisses people off, especially educators. (Understandably since it is their job to educate everyone equally, and especially to raise the level of the poorest performers). But it is well correlated at this point. Think back to high school: everyone realized this at some point - there were some students who just seemed smarter. Some of them didn't even have to work for it. It sucked if you sat in one of these kids' shadow. It doesn't mean hard work doesn't pay off, it doesn't mean you should not invest in your children, but it does mean that just like in sports, your genes are as big a contributor as the environment.

On that note: why are people willing to accept this in sports, but not in academics? It's totally cool to say something about Nigerian runners having long legs, or say "white men can't jump, hahaha" or "Asians are short" but if you say some people are genetically gifted in intelligence sets off everyone's alarm bells.

Eight factors that correlate to higher test scores
Highly educated parents
Parents have high socioeconomic status
Mother was thirty or older at the time of first child's birth
Child had low birth weight
Parents speak English at home
Child is adopted
Parents are involved in the PTA
Child has many books in the home

Eight factors that do NOT correlate with higher test scores:
Family is intact
Family's recent move to a better neighborhood
Mother did not work between birth and kindergarten
Child attended Head Start
Parents bring children to museums regularly
Child is regularly spanked
Child frequently watches television
Parents read to him nearly every day

It's totally cool to say something about Nigerian runners having long legs, or say "white men can't jump, hahaha" or "Asians are short" but if you say some people are genetically gifted in intelligence sets off everyone's alarm bells.

Actually, I would say it's pretty much not cool to say things that are intentionally stereotyping people, even when it comes to physical ability. There are short Nigerians, tall Asians, and white men who can jump in the world. And our preconceptions about "athletic prowess" often also harbor weird stereotypes that we may not even be conscious of.
My favorite example of this is the stars of professional basketball in the 1920s through early 1940s. You know who they were? Jews. Often specifically short

"The correlation between reading and mathematics ability at age twelve has a substantial genetic component

The problem is "all siblings presumably experience similar degrees of parental attentiveness, economic opportunity and so on" which is of course very unlikely to be a

I think the issue at hand is it isn't quite controlled well enough to trumpet the genetic component as *the* correlation of interest. Other factors are handwaved away by saying "all siblings presumably experience similar degrees of parental attentiveness, economic opportunity and so on". Anyone who has grown up alongside twins (there actually

In this specific case we can split hairs, but in the end they are singling out genetics in a relatively large set of uncontrolled variables as the facet to focus on. Yes, like any good scientist the distinction is made, but pretending that aside from genetics a pair of fraternal and identical twins have *no other* fundamental different life experiences is a long shot that does strongly suggest the belief in a causative hypothesis and that they conducted this research with that assumption in mind. Identica

I've got a kid who is clearly ahead of the class with mathematics but clearly behind the class with reading. So, these studies probably mean it isn't a fundamental ability problem, so where do I go from here?

Aptitude is only half the story. The other half is being interested in the subject.

Mine was the reverse. Still is. I suggest spending some money on a psych-ed assessment. You'll learn a lot about your child's learning and mind... Plus you'll have the information handy should you find the need to send your child to a school more suited to his/her needs...

Both of us had issues at school but our child was reasonably bright, we always thought... It wasn't until we watched our son play with other kids that we realized he was brighter than your average kid... It wasn't until the beginning of

I've got a kid who is clearly ahead of the class with mathematics but clearly behind the class with reading. So, these studies probably mean it isn't a fundamental ability problem, so where do I go from here?

Aptitude is only half the story. The other half is being interested in the subject.

My suggestions:Read with them.Don't let them watch movies until he's read the books they're based on.Find stories that they fall into and can't put the book down.

Don't let them watch movies until he's read the books they're based on.

We did this with the Harry Potter series. We let my oldest (now almost 11) watch the first two movies and then insisted that he read the books with me before he could see any more movies. (He could see a subsequent movie when he finished the book.)

We recently started his with our youngest (7). I let him watch the first movie and now he's reading the first book with my wife. He will be able to watch the other movies as he finishes the

Don't let them watch movies until he's read the books they're based on.

We did this with the Harry Potter series. We let my oldest (now almost 11) watch the first two movies and then insisted that he read the books with me before he could see any more movies. (He could see a subsequent movie when he finished the book.)

We recently started his with our youngest (7). I let him watch the first movie and now he's reading the first book with my wife. He will be able to watch the other movies as he finishes the books.

In other words, we used the first movie as a hook to get them interested in the series. Not something you can do with any book/movie, but works very nicely with Harry Potter. As a bonus, they can really appreciate what was cut out of the books to make them into movies. As much as I like the movies, the books contain a LOT more details for why things happen and have many subplots that were cut entirely.

Excellent:-)

Mine just finished LoTRs in French. Trying to find stuff in English that he hasn't already read in French is a bit tricky because he's better in French and tends to get his hands on stuff before I can, um, manage the flow.

Like the GP, I have a son who is ahead of his class in math. He used to love math class and would figuratively devour any math problem presented to him. Recently, his love of math has become tempered, though. It's not that he's getting into harder math problems, but the way the math is being taught. (New York State adopted a system of teaching that requires all teachers to teach the same lessons to their kids in the same way - regardless of learning lev

Teach him to read numbers well, then start looking for things with numbers. I'm looking at my car registration renewal letter and it has dollar figures, dates, descriptions, rates ("tax rate per $100 value"), tabular data, etc. You can make math problems out of these, like "what is the total of city and county tax?" that will require him to read words like "city" and "county" in the table.

I don't know how serious of a reading problem your son has, but if he's clearly behind a 1st grade class I'm guessing he's having trouble even reading words aloud. Even short things like this letter might help him get started.

Of course if you just mean he's behind a little bit because he isn't interested in reading, but knows the fundamentals, that's a different matter.

My son, now in second grade, was like that too. He refused to even acknowledge that he knew how to read and would complain that reading was "too hard." We were patient and read to him. We also reassured him that him reading wouldn't mean the end of time spent with us reading to him. A couple of weeks ago, he read his first chapter book (in the Bad Kitty series) and it sparked something in him. Over the past couple of weeks, he has read the entire rest of the Bad Kitty series as well as a bunch of other

There are massive differences in biochemistry, physiology and neurology in almost every area between racial groups, including brain size, skeletal structure, biochemistry, genetics, eye color, skin color, and so on, for instance Caucasians are the only racial group where most adults can digest Lactose, and this is clearly due to tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution that caused some races in cold climates to develop higher IQ and larger brain capacity.

Except that none of the foregoing is true; it is merely the fantasies of those who wish to claim themselves as the Master Race. From Wikipedia: "It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race."

Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

And/Or possibly by interbreeding with neanderthals. They had larger brains than modern humans.

For about 20 years I figured (before the anthropologists made it gospel), that we didn't kill off Neanderthals but interbred with them. Much of the superior Neanderthal strength however was bred out. Why? I figure the reason the weaker branch outbreak the genes for strength during an ice age was due to "metabolism." Super strong muscles even if the creature is smart requires more food.

Humans are about the weakest mammal pound for pound, but we also seem to have nearly the lowest metabolism. Only the Armadil

As a person who is actually Caucasian and was found to have genius IQ -- I'm going to dispute the way racial intelligence is computed. For one thing, I experienced a lot of ADD and ADHD as a child -- and later it seemed I "grew out of it" but the real reason was my allergy load reduced. It appears I should not be getting gluten in my diet and mold in my air. So in the wrong environment -- I seem to be an air head.

The other issue is that these IQ tests are from a Caucasian mindset. Sure, cold weather led to

Lactose intolerance is about the GUT bacteria not the genetics of the person. You can transplant gut bacteria and get rid of lactose intolerance. This has been known (not mainstream) for a long time already.

No evolution is involved except perhaps in the bacteria why exist to carry. Face it, you are the minority of your own body and those bacteria let you live so you can bring them food.

No, you don't watch infomercials, do you? If they have no genetic makeup, someone will either grind up some rocks and sell them "Essential Minerals", or put a cantelope in a blender and sell them that to keep their skin young looking.

The free market loves a vacuum since that is a source of suckers who will buy anything. As soon as you tell someone they have "no genetic makeup", someone will invent it and send them a free bottle after they sign up for auto-refill and auto-pay.